Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

Incredible: Wirral Council officer states to EFA that special schools’ minimum funding guarantee is “unaffordable”

                                    

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council's Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

Labour councillors at a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Coordinating Committee vote to consult on closing Lyndale School (27th February 2014)

I received a response yesterday from the Education Funding Agency to my Freedom of Information Act request about Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee (that was later withdrawn).

Wirral Council assumed it would make a successful application for an exemption from the 98.5% minimum funding guarantee. This was what led to the predicted shortfall in Lyndale School’s budget of £72,000 for 2014/15. This application was later withdrawn (before the Education Funding Agency reached a decision on it) which led to Lyndale School’s financial forecast for 2014/15 changing from a deficit to a surplus.

The detail of the rationale behind the application is interesting though and is included below. It seems to it was emailed to the Education Funding Agency by an Andrew Roberts (Senior Manager, School Funding & Resources). The date of the email isn’t included, however I’ve submitted an internal review request for that too.

What’s interesting is that it in the application Andrew Roberts states “However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.” However at the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 27th February the eight Labour councillors voted against an amendment (six voted for the amendment who were the Lib Dem councillor, five Conservative councillors and the parent governor rep) proposed and seconded by the Conservative councillors that was “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children.”

Wirral Council’s Andrew Roberts also states “Without capping the MFG (minimum funding guarantee) costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.”

This however seems to contradict what Surjit Tour stated at Budget Cabinet on the 12th February 2014 in his advice to Cabinet deciding on their recommendation to Council for the Schools Budget for 2014/15 (I’ve underlined the relevant section of what Surjit Tour said) which was

“Queries have been raised with regards to whether there is an impact on the outstanding call in, in relation to the Schools Budget which may have a direct impact.

One of them in particular is the proposals for changes to the school’s top up payments for schools with high needs. Members will be aware that the matter is to be considered by the Policy and Performance Coordinating Committee on the 27th February. The position with regards to the proposed Schools Budget is that it includes a contingency provision and that provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications that may arise as a result of the forthcoming call in hearing and therefore you can agree the, the proposed budget is both sufficient and sufficiently flexible to address any potential implications that may arise and that therefore means that the budget can be proposed to Council forthwith.”

The contingency referred to was for £908,900. At this point you might point out that £908,900 is more than enough to cover the £800,000 extra needed by the minimum funding guarantee. However if you read this report to the Wirral Schools Forum meeting of the 22nd January 2014 it states what the £908,900 contingency is planned to be used for and I quote:

Contingency. The contingency identified of £908,900 is required to cover the potential costs of:

  • Adjustments with the EFA for post 16 students. There are ongoing discussions about the costs of mainstream school and academy High Needs places (£6,000 per place) which potentially will cost £372,000
  • Any unforeseen consequences arising from the implementation and review of High Needs Top Ups.
  • Unfunded growth in place numbers – there has been a small net increase in the planned number of High Needs places
  • Any mismatch between places identified with providers and places taken up.
  • Inflationary pressures within Non Maintained Special Schools.
  • Uncertainty about the overall statement numbers

So with Wirral Council officers stating that funding Lyndale School is first “unaffordable”, then another officer stating that “provision is considered sufficient to meet any potential financial implications” is it any wonder that people are confused on this point?

The minutes of the Coordinating Committee deciding the call in state “The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”

How can it be “more affordable” though? Has the designation of what the contingency fund to be used for changed from what was agreed by the Wirral Schools Forum in January (as outlined above) to a decision behind the scenes to withdraw the minimum funding guarantee exemption application and use the contingency to fund the minimum funding guarantee? Is the reason why funding is no longer mentioned with regards to Lyndale School because officers stated (at different times) that it was both affordable and unaffordable (and as the underlying budget hasn’t changed both positions can’t both be accurate can they)?

Wirral Council’s Julia Hassall now says that the consultation on closing Lyndale School is because of pupil numbers as there are twenty-three children at the school which has a capacity for forty. Following the review by Eric Craven there was a reduction in the planned admission number for Lyndale School last year from forty-five to forty. I’m sure Wirral Council (if it wanted to) could reduce the planned admission number at Lyndale School for future years to a lower number such as thirty or twenty-five.

Wirral Council’s policy on the admission arrangements for primary schools for 2015-16 was agreed by Cabinet last Thursday. In it it states at “3.5 Special Needs. All schools will be required to admit a pupil with a Statement of Special Educational Needs naming the school.”

Therefore if Wirral Council started naming Lyndale School in SEN statements, rather than sending more pupils to oversubscribed special schools such as Elleray Park (currently with 91 pupils and 80 places) wouldn’t this help increase numbers at Lyndale towards its place figure of forty?

What’s interesting is that money was put in the budget for next year to increase the numbers of places at Elleray Park by ten. So why can’t Wirral Council agree to reduce the number of places at Lyndale School by ten?

Below is Wirral Council’s application (later withdrawn) from Andrew Roberts for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee which guarantees that schools receive at least 98.5% of the money they received the previous year.
——————————————————————————————————-

This letter is requesting exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG included within the 2014 – 2015 DSG additional conditions of grant. Paragraph g “In deciding on top up funding rates for the pupils it will place in special schools …. and the total number and type of places received the same in the 2 financial years the school or Academy budget would receive by no more than 1.5% in cash between 2013 – 2014 and 2014 – 2015.”

Over the past 12 months a Schools Forum SEN finance group has met to develop proposals for high needs funding and particularly to agree a banded approach for specialist SEN provision.

A banded system (with 5 bands) was developed taking account of a number of issues:

  • The need for stability
  • The fluctuation arising from part year places and the need to have places available.
  • To take account of the increasing demands and population with social communication needs and to recognise the resource intensive nature of provision for children with profound and multiple learning difficulties.

These 5 bands have also been applied to SEN resourced base provision in mainstream schools and academies. The bands used take account of the same needs identified within Wirral’s 11 special schools and in addition gives an equivalent level of funding for each child.

Changes of this nature will result in movement of resources and a number of schools will as a result receive more funding and others will receive less. However proposals include a contingency fund to financially support any specialist provision that may experience financial difficulties.

The SEN top up proposals were subject to a full consultation with all schools and providers in Wirral, commencing on 3rd July and closing on 18th October. The consultation papers included an illustration for each school of the funding a school might receive using current numbers and numbers at capacity, compared with the level of funding provided in 2013 – 2014. In addition there has been a series of meetings with schools to discuss the changes suggested.

24 responses were received including 10 out of 11 special schools and 6 out of 14 school SEN resource bases. Overall the responses were supportive and in favour of the local authority’s proposals.

Since the consultation was launched schools were asked a supplementary question about views on seeking an exemption from the requirement for an SEN MFG. This approach has been adopted because the MFG will not work with the new top up bands. Without capping the MFG costs an additional £800,000 which would be unaffordable, whilst capping would defer the introduction of the new top-up structure.

Schools were asked for their preferences based on a table illustrating:

No MFG (7)
An Average MFG (phased over 3 years) (5)
A full MFG (0)
The responses are shown in brackets above.

This issue was discussed at the Schools Forum meeting on 13th November 2013. The recommendation from the forum was “That Forum supports an application to the EFA for an exemption from the requirement to use an MFG (Option 1) on Top Ups for 2014 – 2015, and failing that Forum request the EFA agree the use of an average MFG (Option 2)”

A number of papers are attached to this e-mail including:

School Forum Agenda from 13 November 2013:
Element 3 Top up funding arrangements for pupils with high needs (SEN) and for pupils attending Alternative Provision. (This report includes the consultation paper and letter to schools about the MFG)
An extract from the Schools Forum minutes

Please let me know if you would like further details.

I look forward to hearing from you

Yours sincerely

Andrew Roberts signature

Andrew Roberts
Senior Manager – School Funding & Resources
Children and Young People’s Department
Wirral Council
Tel: 0151 666 4249
Fax: 0151 666 4338
andrewroberts@wirral.gov.uk

Visit our website: www.wirral.gov.uk

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

Strange: Why proceed with a consultation on closing Lyndale School when the reason for closing it no longer exists?

                                         

The Cheshire Cat from Disney's Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version)
The Cheshire Cat from Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (the 1951 version) which seemed about the only image that seemed ideal for this story about Lyndale School and Wirral Council

First, if you’ve been away on holiday the past two months a recap on what’s happened so far in a saga that’s seems to quickly becoming as complicated as the plot to the Lord of the Rings.

It starts with a proposal to Wirral Council’s Cabinet by Wirral Council officers to consult on closing Lyndale School. At the same meeting Wirral Council’s officers also proposed introducing a new system for funding “high needs” students where from 2014-15 extra funding to schools would be determined by which one of five bands that school’s pupils were categorised as being in. There was an emotional plea made to councillors on the Cabinet by Dawn Hughes (who has a child at the school) not to agree to consult on closure of Lyndale School (which was reported on this blog). However Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet decided to both agree to consult on closing Lyndale School and also the banding proposals too.

It’s important at this stage to state the reasons given back in January for consulting on closing Lyndale School by Wirral Council officers, which are detailed both in the minutes and the report.

Here are some quotes from the report (although at this point in time some of these purported facts have been found to be factually incorrect).

“The closure of the Lyndale School is proposed for consideration because the viability of the school is compromised by its small size and falling roll, which both contribute to a difficult financial position.”

“In 2013-14 the school has set a budget for the year based on School Funding of £761,733 with a small deficit of £3,647. This was achieved using all accumulated balances brought forward of £51,707. The latest position indicates there will be deficit at the year end of £15,667. This has resulted from changes in staff costs and support services.”

“In 2014-15 the school forecast, before any corrective action, is that there would be a deficit of £72,000. This deficit has the potential to increase to in excess of £232,000 based on the numbers of children currently on the school roll.”

“This means that for 2014-15 the shortfall the school may experience will be approximately £72,000 for the year based on the number currently on school roll. This is approximately 9% of their budget.”

What this report in January didn’t mention at all (which was a pretty glaring omission at the time although a report to the same meeting did mention it but that other report didn’t specifically refer to Lyndale School) was this was all dependent on the assumption that Wirral Council would have its application to the government that the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% wouldn’t apply to it approved. The minimum funding guarantee is a legal requirement on Wirral Council found in Regulation 19 of The School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations 2013 not to reduce funding to a school for its 2014-15 financial year (based on its 2013-14 budget allocation) by more than 1.5%. However the regulations allow the Secretary of State for Education to agree to requests from local councils to a different minimum funding guarantee.

Wirral Council did at some point make an application to the Education Funding Agency for the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% not to apply to it in 2014-15 (although I’m waiting for this Freedom of Information Act request to the Education Funding Agency to be answered as to the details on that). On the 27th January 2014 Cllrs Tom Harney, Phil Gilchrist, Jeff Green, Ian Lewis, Cherry Povall and Pat Williams called in the two Cabinet decisions.

These two decisions then went to the Coordinating Committee meeting of the 5th February 2014 to be looked at again. However the Coordinating Committee didn’t have the required parent governor representatives and Diocesan Body representatives that they were required by legislation to have when making decisions on educational (or school) related matters. So the meeting of 5th February 2014 was adjourned and a recommendation made to the Council meeting on the 25th February 2014 so that the parent governor representatives and Diocesan body representatives could be added to the Coordinating Committee. This was agreed at a meeting of the full Council on the 25th February 2014.

While all this was going on, the Cabinet made its recommendation on the 2014-15 Schools Budget to Council on the 12th February 2014 and Council agreed the Schools Budget on the 25th February 2014 (including matters that were yet to be decided because of the adjourned Coordinating Committee meeting). The issue of the upcoming call ins was raised at the Cabinet meeting and councillors were told that there was a contingency (of £908,900) included as part of the Schools Budget which would mean that whatever the outcome of the call ins were that it could still be funded.

On the 27th February the Coordinating Committee met again to consider the two call ins on the decision to consult on closing Lyndale School and the banding proposals.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of the Coordinating Committee on the 27th February to consider the Lyndale School consultation closure call in (adjourned from the Coordinating Committee on the 5th Feburary).

On both matters the draft minutes state that a majority of the councillors plus the parent governor representative present who had a vote, voted to uphold the original Cabinet decisions. It’s worth pointing out that on the Lyndale School closure consultation decision the Conservative councillors proposed instead a review (which was voted against by nine votes to six). On the banding proposals the Conservative councillors proposed the following motion “We would like to seek assurance that the required contingency funding is in place to top up the special educational funding to ensure that the level of funding required for the best care and education is provided for all children” (which was lost by seven votes for the motion and eight against).

The votes on the Labour councillor’s recommendations to uphold the two original Labour Cabinet decisions were on the Lyndale School consultation closure decision nine votes to six (the Labour councillors plus the Lib Dem councillor Cllr Alan Brighouse voted in favour of a consultation on closure whereas the Conservative councillors and parent governor representative voted against). The vote on a recommendation by Labour councillors to uphold the Labour Cabinet decision on the banding proposals was won by a narrower margin of eight votes to seven (the Labour councillors voted for it with the Lib Dem councillor, Conservatives and parent governor representative being opposed to it).

So, what’s new? Well unfortunately I had to go (and as the first call in on consulting closing Lyndale School had taken three and half hours had run out of tape anyway) after the first decision over the Lyndale School closure consultation decision. So I’ve only found out what happened at the second part of the meeting by reading the draft minutes of that meeting were available at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting.

Here is what the draft minutes state about the minimum funding guarantee. My comments are in italics underneath.

The first quote is about the explanation of the banding proposals decision by the Cabinet Member Cllr Tony Smith.

“Basically, the report had dealt with the banding model and informed how top ups would be made. The Committee noted that the minimum funding guarantee was now more affordable, therefore the application for an exemption from this requirement had been withdrawn.”

Well that’s a revelation isn’t it? When did Wirral Council withdraw its application for an exemption from the minimum funding requirement? The minimum funding guarantee was always “affordable” as there was a contingency (in case the application for a minimum funding guarantee exemption was turned down of £908,900). Wirral Council also gets for 2014-15 an Special Educational Needs Reform Grant of £364,135 (see here for the details) which according to the letter linked to the government state that Wirral Council can “choose how to spend the money in order to best meet local need”.

Then this in the draft minutes from the evidence of the Vice-Chair of Governors at Lyndale School (and Chair of their Finance Committee) Ian Harrison.

“Mr Harrison informed that the Lyndale School now had a surplus forecast for 2013/14. It was going to get the minimum funding guarantee. There would be a small surplus in 2014/15.”

So if the original reason for consulting on closing Lyndale School was that an officer (or officers) at Wirral Council thought it wouldn’t have enough money, but the minimum funding guarantee exemption request has been withdrawn so that Lyndale School is now projecting a surplus (at least for 2014/15), why is Wirral Council going to the trouble of a twelve week consultation on closing the school?

“Members then asked Mr Harrison some questions which he answered as appropriate. It was noted that:

  • The Cabinet had received an early estimate rather than one at the end of the period when it would have been more realistic.”

Perhaps councillors were too polite to suggest that the Cabinet had based their decision on an estimate based on an assumption about the minimum funding guarantee (that is that the assumption that it would be approved and not withdrawn) which turned out not to be the case.

  • None of the special schools agreed with the formula that had been approved.

There are eleven special schools on Wirral (Hayfield, Clare Mount, Orrets Meadow, Gilbrook, Stanley, Elleray, Lyndale, Foxfield, Meadowside and Kilgarth). The 2014-15 budgets for each special school would have each been affected by the banding proposals. Had the minimum funding guarantee exemption application not been withdrawn, other schools could have been facing deficits (although Lyndale was the school most affected). The motion that was agreed on this item is stated in the draft minutes as “That the Committee upholds the Cabinet’s decision and it be ensured that consultation is meaningful, informed and transparent”. This is very unclear. Does that mean there’s going to be a consultation on the banding proposals or is it referring to the consultation to close Lyndale School?

So to summarise, Wirral Council officers thought there would be a large deficit in Lyndale School’s budget so recommended to the Cabinet that they should consult on closing the school. This decision was called in and during the call in it was discovered that Wirral Council’s application for an exemption from the minimum funding guarantee had been withdrawn. So now there’s a legal requirement that Lyndale School will get at least 98.5% of the amount they got in the previous year. As Lyndale School had looked into reducing costs of non teaching staff to reduce the original estimated large deficit, they now estimate a small surplus in their budget for 2014/15.

However Wirral Council is still going to carry out a twelve week consultation on closing the school based on an estimated deficit in Lyndale School’s budget that now can’t happen because the minimum funding guarantee of 98.5% is a legal requirement on Wirral Council.

How much is such a consultation, based on a guesstimate by officers (which ended up being wrong) going to cost? Bearing in mind the above, is it any wonder that people get confused by Wirral Council’s decision-making and politics? Am I missing something vital or is everything I’ve stated here correct?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with Andy Day memorial cup by the Mayor of Wirral

Cllr Phil Gilchrist presented with the Andy Day Memorial Cup by the Mayor of Wirral at a meeting of Wirral Council

Cllr Phil Gilchrist is this year’s recipient of the Andy Day Memorial Cup

                          

In awarding the cup the Mayor of Wirral said during a meeting of the Council on Monday, “As this is my last full Council meeting,it falls upon me to present the Andy Day memorial cup. I’ve been very impressed by lots of councillors throughout the year, the amount of work that they do as councillors but also throughout their community. I’ve struggled over the last few days to select a particular Member who I believe is worthy of the cup and I’ve come to the conclusion that my nomination for the Andy Day Memorial Cup this year will be Councillor Phil Gilchrist.

The reason behind that is he’s a stalwart within my own particular ward. He’s taken up the mantle with myself being the Mayor this year and he’s taken on a lot more work than he would normally do. Outside of that I do know that he does an awful lot of work within the community. May I present the Andy Day Memorial to Councillor Phil Gilchrist.”

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said receiving the cup was “totally out of the blue”. Video of the cup being presented to Cllr Phil Gilchrist starts at 2:20 in the video below.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders on Wirral Council

Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders on Wirral Council

Budget Council speeches from the three party leaders

                                                  

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Cllr Phil Davies’ (Labour Leader) budget speech starts at 6:27. Cllr Jeff Green (Conservative Leader) speech on the budget begins at 20:00 and carries on into the next video.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Cllr Jeff Green’s (Conservative Leader) budget speech starts at 0:01. Cllr Phil Gilchrist’s (Lib Dem Leader) speech on the Lib Dem budget starts at 1:20.

Cllr Phil Davies said, “Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr Mayor, we need tonight to set our budget for next year in perhaps the most difficult set of circumstances this Council has ever faced. Mr Mayor in his five years in power David Cameron will have cut funding to local government by 40%, by the end of 2016 this Council’s main revenue grant will have been cut by over 50% since 2010. This is a huge reduction and the government has hit the most disadvantaged areas the hardest, Mr Mayor this is a scandal.

The most deprived areas are shouldering the greatest reductions in government funding while some of the wealthiest areas will find themselves better off. Mr Mayor this financial year the Prime Minister’s own local authority of West Oxfordshire, one of the least deprived areas in the country actually received an increase in its spending power while some of our most deprived areas on Merseyside are dealing with the most significant reductions.

The consequences of this policy have been devastating. Local services decimated, massive job losses, councils predicting imminent bankruptcy, some actually saying that they may be unable to guarantee their ability to provide even statutory services and at a time when so many people are struggling with rapidly escalating energy bills, prices rising faster than wages and benefit cuts David Cameron is refusing to rule out cutting the top rate of tax yet again. This
affair is absolutely shameful.

If the last four years have taught us anything it’s surely that we need a government which governs for the many, not the few and in terms of local government we need a government that distributes funding in a fair way and a Secretary of State that treats hard working councils and councillors who do their best to serve their residents with respect not contempt.

Mr Mayor, when my party took over the administration of this Council in May 2012 we faced a hugely challenging set of circumstances. We inherited a set of bad budgets and bad debts culminating in a £17 million overspend inherited from the previous administration.

Government cuts of £109 million over three years cut off a third of our net revenue budget. Growing demand for many of our services as a result of demographic change, factors such as an aging population and an organisation with poor corporate governance, weak management and a silo mentality.

Mr Mayor, I’m proud that through the hard work of Members and officers supported by external experts on our Improvement Board Wirral is one of the fastest improving councils in the country and we’ve put the Council’s finances on a firm footing to such an extent that the latest financial monitoring statement from the Director of Resources reports that the Council has an underspend of £982,000.

Mr Mayor our approach to the budget setting has been to use our overarching goals attracting jobs and investment, protecting vulnerable people & communities and narrowing the gap in inequalities as our key priorities in shaping our budget. I am proud of the fact that we’ve listened to our residents in framing our budget proposals. The What Really Matters exercise we conducted last year, one of the largest consultations in the country genuinely influenced our decisions on budget options that we proposed to Council last December.

However I will not deny that we’ve had to make some difficult decisions £48 million of cuts this year, £27 and a half million next year. I’ve said many times that I did not come into politics to make cuts and if I was given a choice of course I would not wish to cut any services. However given that 85% of our incomes comes from central government we are in the invidious position of having to make these decisions in order to set a legal budget. But let me make one thing clear Mr Mayor in spite of what the opposition may say, responsibility for these cuts that we’ve had to make on this Council lies squarely at the door of this Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government and the parties opposite should be ashamed of what they’ve done to Wirral and this country.

Mr Mayor if I can now turn to our budget proposals, I’m pleased there is consensus around at least a number of items in the Labour Budget. The £7.6 million of growth in measures to support older people, younger people with learning disabilities and adoptions and special guardians. £1 million to enhance early intervention, £2 million invested in upgrading Europa Pools, Guinea Gap and West Kirby. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to use £400,000 from the waste development fund to reinstate monthly cleansing of entries and I’m also pleased that we’ll be continuing our funding commitment to constituency committees over the next year.

I’m pleased that we’ll ensure the Williamson Art Gallery can operate while the action group which has been looking at new ways of delivering this valued facility and finalising its business plan and I’m also pleased at being able to provide reassurance that no funding will be withdrawn from school crossing patrols where agreement cannot be reached with schools.

With regard to our staff I’m pleased that we were able to maintain a generous voluntary severance scheme, I’m also pleased that under this Labour administration this Council became a living wage Council last year and I now want to go further and I want Wirral to become a living wage Borough.

Mr Mayor I think it’s a shame that yet again the Conservative Group in their amendment is attacking our staff by deleting the funding for full time trade union officials. I have said many times that trade unions play a vital role in achieving good industrial relations and working with trade unions in partnership is the sign of a progressive organisation.

Mr Mayor with regards to next year’s council tax I’m pleased to announce that we will freeze the council tax in 2014/15. Providing the government doesn’t change the rules we also aim to freeze the council tax in 2015/16. We’ve been able to do this because the government have been forced to change its policy in response to the lobbying that this Council and others that the freeze grant should be built into the base budget.

Well let me make it clear Mr Mayor the freeze grant of £1.3 million whilst welcome, pales into insignificance against the £120 million which this government has cut from Wirral Council’s budget and if the government is really serious about helping councils like Wirral they should reimburse the lion’s share of this £120 million.

Mr Mayor, the council freeze will I believe will help all residents of the Borough. We will not impose an extra burden on council tax payers, hopefully for the next two years. We will continue to provide a discount to the vast majority of pensioners and we are putting £300,000 into the budget to ensure the poorest in our communities don’t pay more following the government’s disgraceful cut to council tax benefit.

Mr Mayor, these measures are important, but in contrast to the Tory amendment which proposes a series of largely short-term one off spending commitments, this administration is also proposing a £1.5 million house building program funded by a mixture of in year underspends and borrowing to kick start housing in those areas of the Borough which have lost out after the housing market renewal program was so callously cut by a stroke of Eric Pickle’s pen, an absolute disgrace.

Mr Mayor, the leader of the opposition is wrong to claim that Magenta Living could fill this gap. Official projections indicate we need to build around about six hundred new houses each year for the next five years. Magenta’s program will only be sufficient to meet a small proportion of this need and much of their new build will be a need to replace units that they have demolished.

Our program will generate a hundred new homes with the potential for substantially more. It will benefit future generations of residents long after this budget has been passed. It will create a significant number of new jobs and apprenticeships for our young people, most importantly because we know there is a strong link between good housing and good health it will contribute to reducing the gap in life expectancy, a key problem which has blighted Wirral for far too long.

Mr Mayor, in conclusion given the background I outlined earlier, this has been perhaps the most difficult budget I’ve been involved in setting. I would remind Council we still have a huge financial challenge ahead of us. We need to achieve additional savings of £44 million over the next two years and the remodelling work which was discussed at the Members’ seminar last week at the Floral Pavilion is essential if we are to deliver these savings and continue to provide good quality services.

Mr Mayor I think it’s essential that we continue to lobby the government to rethink the grossly unfair way in which it distributes funding to councils. I have to say I find the Tory Group’s proposal to withdraw from membership of SIGOMA, an organisation which has spoken loudly in favour of local government to be deeply, deeply cynical.

Mr Mayor although we’ve had to make some difficult I’m proud we’ve put the Council’s finances on a sound footing and we are helping all households with the council tax freeze in 2014/15 and hopefully the year beyond. We are putting extra money into the budget to meet our demographic growth, we are giving additional help to pensioners, the long term unemployed and attracting new jobs and investments. We have listened to and acted on the views of our residents. Crucially our house building program will leave a lasting legacy for future generations.

Mr Mayor this is a budget to be proud of, it’s a budget of a progressive Council with a clear vision for the future and a commitment to social justice and I commend it to the Council.”

Cllr Jeff Green said, “I will of course be brief Mr Mayor.

Mr Mayor, firstly let me say how much I welcome and I’m sure this is shared by the entire Council the fact that the Coalition government’s economic policies are working and the UK economy is now growing faster than any other major European economy. Businesses have created 1.6 million new jobs and unemployment has come down sharply. I’m sure we will also welcome the fact this government has allowed hard working people by amongst other things cutting income tax for the typical taxpayer by £590, giving a saving of £360 on petrol and of course freezing council tax.

Mr Mayor, what a difference to the economic mess the government inherited when they came to power. Labour had maxed out the national credit card, doubled our national debt and taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. They left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the developed world and in our own peacetime history borrowing £1 in every four we spent resulting in payments of £120 million every day just to cover interest.

So Mr Mayor even the local Labour party must now admit bearing down on public spending was and remains an absolute priority for any sensible government. Even if the Leader of the Council over eggs the pudding somewhat by claiming that by 2016 we will have seen our overall budget halved since austerity measures were introduced. I’m sorry Mr Mayor that’s not over egging as I suggested, it is in fact utter tosh.

Mr Mayor let me be clear whilst I regret that sending grant to the government last year I do welcome the fact that the administration have swallowed their pride and have last decided to freeze council tax even if they’ve been brought to this point kicking and screaming.

I am however Mr Mayor disgusted that the only people who’ll see an increase in the direct contribution they have to make to Wirral services are pensioners. Given that the Labour administration have retained their cuts to pensioner discount and removed it completely from some without any recognition of their means.

Mr Mayor this is completely unfair and I’m delighted that if our amendment is passed tonight we will right this wrong. We also note that by their own hands the Labour administration increased the cost of living for the average family by £295.51 since April 2013. Therefore we demonstrate how the cost of living burden can be reduced by reverting to the pre April 2012 car parking charges, reinstating a year round free after three parking initiative, halving the charge for residents for garden waste collection and freezing for one year at its current level Wirral Council tax fees and charges.

We’ve also been able to find resources to ensure that funding meant for the education of Wirral school children is not diverted to pay for the Council’s responsibility to provide school crossing patrols. Now let me just be clear because I did check on this particular point as I do on them all of course and that was made very clear that whatever the warm words of the Leader of the Council no move has been made to put that money back into the budget and that cut remains in place.

Mr Mayor it also allows the street lights back on, increase the level of dog fouling enforcement, invest £1 million for an immediate programme to repair pot holes and improve Wirral’s roads and pavements and maintain our commitment to early intervention and Children Centres in the sure knowledge that failure to support young families in the early years will cost Wirral Council and taxpayers in the long term.

So Mr Mayor, how are we going to find the resources to reduce the cost of living burden and reverse some of Labour’s more baffling cuts? Well we’ve looked to find savings where any hard working Wirral family who could scrutinise the Council’s budget would expect cutting back on the cost of ourselves, leaning the Council bureaucracy, cutting out duplication and being more ambitious to transform the entire Council.

How on earth can the current administration justify an alternative support to councillors budget, spending £130,000 on paying for trade union officials, a Council press, marketing and design department of twenty posts, spending £1.9 million on items that are duplicated elsewhere in the Borough when cutting children’s centres, school crossing patrols, switching off street lights and making pensioners on fixed incomes pay for the privilege?

I also believe that with immediate action to increase the focus, ambition, discipline, rigour, risk management and improving accountability for the transforming Wirral Council change project can deliver increased cash benefits this year. Although I believe the current approach being adopted by the Leader of the Council does carry the risk of breaking any political consensus around the structural changes required be all Council led.

The fundamental question whose money is the administration seeking to spend? As Conservatives we believe the money earned by hard working people should be spent by them on their ambitions and aspirations themselves alone and only taken from them in council revenue or other sorts of tax when it’s absolutely essential.

Mr Mayor, if this budget amendment is passed tonight it will restore the safety of Wirral’s children and families, result in a 0% Council Tax increase for all Wirral residents, retain the pensioner’s discount in full, directly reduce the cost of living for hard working Wirral families and prevent the Council raising stealth taxes via its fees and charges, improve recycling, start the process of repatriating loans given out at bargain basement levels of interest to other Councils and I believe when that resource comes back it should be used to pay down the current levels of debt and maintain the entire Council’s commitment to a sustainable budget. Mr Mayor I commend our amendment to the Council.”

Cllr Phil Gilchrist said, “Thank you Mr Mayor. Perhaps if I just deal with the last point that was raised because last July I made enquiries about this loans situation and I’ve made more enquiries since. What puzzles me is that Councillor Green has included the whole amount that’s out on loan in his commentary at the same time we actually have earned £482,000 on the loans that have come back and we expect to get £238,000 on the loans that are still outstanding so I am cautious about the claims about the loans.

We have the money, it’s a bit like Father Ted. We have money resting in our account and the Council chose to invest it. We didn’t get as much as we’ve had in the past but at least the investments have produced some income and therefore that is to our health. So I was disagreeing with the interpretation of that.

Now I will turn to other things. I’ll try to be consistent and helpful as ever if I may. In December my colleagues and I welcomed some things and disagreed with others.

We welcomed the fact that we row over the country parks and Council charges, we welcomed new appreciation and concern about gritting among other things, while we continue to highlight our worries about a reduction in street lighting and what we saw as the threat, the idea that schools should pay out of money that they want to spend on education for school crossing patrols which we’ve always seen as a Council service.

Now we’ve highlighted this in December that if a school was running a tight budget or had concerns, we did not wish the school to have to chose between say a teaching assistant or some extra hours for staff and a school crossing patrol. Education was education in our mind and school crossing patrols were a separate service funding by the council payers and not the schools budget. So we continue to raise concerns about that.

I don’t agree with the description about the bad debts and bad budgets. These were things we’ve all known about for about ten or twelve years. It’s just that again year after year when we’ve debated the budget and argued about £2 or £3 million, that underlying problem which was known to senior Members was somehow glossed over and when a total look was taken at it and a clear long look by people who were less close to it, they said this genuinely is a problem and we accepted that and we do agree with the criticisms about us being in a silo culture.

Comments have been made about our Council against others and it is not me that says there’s a problem but Sir Merrick Cockell, Chairman of the Local Government Association who says that the next two years will be the toughest yet for people who use and rely on the vital everyday local services that councils provide. So it’s accepted by Conservatives in local government nationally the problem in the same way that I accept there’s a problem here and I know that the Leader of the Council and I have many warm words to say about North Dorset.

In North Dorset they’ve decided to increase Council Tax by 1.99%. Their budget is a fraction of ours, their tax on their ratepayers is £111 in Band D. It’s not the same kind of Council and I have to say that the Lib Dem Leader of that district said that although it’s like putting a sticking plaster on a gaping wound, this small increase is our only chance of keeping central service going with further savage cuts to government funding the year ahead will not be pleasant. That’s the Lib Dem Leader of a Council that is run by the Tories.

The picture we present is actually more realistic than this strange portrayal that everything’s wonderful elsewhere. In fact in Surrey the Tory Leader’s talking about a black hole in their finances and he’s putting his council tax up by 1.99% because he believes he’s got a black hole in his finances and North Somerset I looked at, they’ve freezed theirs but they’re talking about the council facing a continued reduction in government funding at least until 2018 and the biggest challenges are yet to come. We too face the biggest challenges yet to come because it get’s more difficult and my colleagues and I understand that. In fact a phrase doing the rounds in our party at the moment is ‘it’s grim up north’ which you’ll probably have more to say in a few weeks.

I didn’t quite catch what the Leader said but there are key things we believe we can fund and replace. We believe that the lighting that should be the subject of an investment program. I go along the roads and I look at the lights that are off, I don’t whether the light’s off because it’s failed, a fuse has been pulled out, the bulb’s gone, Manweb haven’t been able to connect the service up or some other fault and out there the electorate are even more, if I’m confused then people out there are even more concerned and confused because there are lights off in various places and nobody knows really knows whether it’s an official light off that we’re saving money on or one that’s supposed to be on because as I understand it when Members have objected to lights being off an officer’s had to go out and find some other fuse to pull to turn another light off to keep within the savings. So it’s a hit and miss approach which we disagree with and we believe there should be investment.

Finally I do want to look ahead and I know I didn’t catch what Councillor Davies said but I do look around and I look at what Councillor McMahon is saying in Oldham, it’s a few weeks since he said that he was going to have a freeze. He says, ‘On too many occasions we claim to present our case effectively both within our parties and within the media allowing ourselves to be characterised as prophets of doom or advocates of the old ways.’ It’s contained in last week’s councillor magazine which I probably got in the post so I do look at the wider world but I also look at the world as it is, not as the world as I might like it to be at.

I look at the worries that the leaders express, I look at the world Cllr Green describes. Yes I see an improvement in the economy, I see better employment, I see all those things and I think we’ve got to get from now to 2015/16 as we try and get stability and try and improve.

Finally I’ve listened to the upset comments coming from Labour colleagues behind me but I do read this document Labour’s zero based review. There isn’t a promise of you know this hall of plenty, that there isn’t. Mr Balls is saying that there is a problem. He accepts the problem if he’s going to make change if he were there. If he was there, if he was in that situation he’s made it clear not much is going to change from their first year or so. So we need to get from now, building stability, make all those savings that are underway with neighbouring authorities those shared services.

We don’t accept that the Tory target of boosting the £9 to £11 million for shared services is achievable yet. We haven’t seen the way things are going to work in practice. We have reservations about the budget some of which we raised last year about the youth services and youth zone and something squeezed but we have concentrated tonight on the key things that we think things are going wrong that could be readily put right and we think the Council would be wise to accept those changes. Thank you Mr. Mayor.”

When it came to the voting (much later in the same meeting), only Labour’s budget received enough votes to be adopted as Wirral Council’s budget for 2014/15.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?

Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?

Are the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget really as bad as politicians have told us?

                        

The information for these tables I’ve used from a Department for Communities and Local Government policy paper which has an explanatory note on how these figures are calculated. Spending power refers to the overall money available for to local councils combining how much they have from Council Tax, business rates and government grants.

Local Authority 2013-14 Spending Power (adjusted) (£ million) 2014-15 Spending Power including Efficiency Support Grant (£ million) Change £ million Change %
Knowsley 198.784 187.589 -11.194 -5.6%
Liverpool 571.351 540.223 -31.129 -5.4%
Sefton 271.588 260.465 -11.123 -4.1%
St Helens 176.510 168.318 -7.832 -4.4%
Wirral 328.860 315.035 -13.825 -4.2%
Merseyside Fire 67.863 64.048 -2.816 -4.1%

The population covered by each is different though, so here is a table showing the spend by dwelling.

Local Authority 2013-14 Spending Power (adjusted) per Dwelling 2014-15 Spending Power including Efficiency Support Grant per Dwelling (£ per dwelling) Change £ per dwelling Change %
Knowsley 3,058.35 2,886.12 -172.23 -5.6%
Liverpool 2,636.01 2,492.39 -143.62 -5.4%
Sefton 2,164.67 2,076.01 -88.65 -4.1%
St Helens 2,193.15 2,095.64 -97.51 -4.4%
Wirral 2,250.35 2,155.75 -94.60 -4.2%
Merseyside Fire 107.10 102.65 -4.44 -4.1%

But what about the Shire I can imagine a politician saying (seemingly forgetting that the Shire is better known for being a fictional place inhabited by hobbits in a fictional world invented by JRR Tolkien)? There are five types of shire, shire unitaries with and without fire, shire counties with and without fire and shire districts. The change in their spending power collectively of each type of shire varies from a 1.2% drop (for shire counties with fire) to a 2.9% drop (for shire unitaries without fire). So yes, in percentage terms the cuts to shires’ budgets are less than the drop in Wirral’s spending power.

However it’s important to note that the spending power of shires was to start with much lower per a dwelling to begin with than Wirral’s. These range from £296.22 per a dwelling for shire districts compared to Wirral’s £2,250.35 to an average of £2,028.61 per a dwelling for shire unitaries with fire.

But what about North Dorset (which seems to be the favourite council for certain Wirral politicians to compare Wirral to)? Well North Dorset has about a fifth of the dwellings that Wirral does. Its spending power for 2013-14 is £7.729 million (2.4% of Wirral’s). Its cut is 2.8% of its budget. Personally I hardly think it’s a fair comparison (although I very much doubt that’ll stop Labour politicians using it).

If we compare Wirral Council to other Merseyside councils (plus the fire authority), the cuts to Wirral Council aren’t exceptional or extraordinary. If we rank the cuts as a percentage to the five councils on Merseyside (plus the fire authority) the cuts to Wirral Council’s budget only come out at fourth.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.